What do you think about the proposed increase of U.S. troops in Iraq?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on January 11, 2007

“I haven’t heard a lot about the whole plan. I’ve heard about the 21,500 troops, but I would like to know more about it.”

— Jim Rajchel, Pittsburg State University junior, Pittsburg

“The president hasn’t done a single thing right so far, and I don’t think he’s going to start now. I think the whole situation is a travesty. I’m embarrassed and horrified. I feel like I have to apologize when I talk to my family overseas.”

— Thea Perry, teacher, Lawrence

“I feel like the Democrats should be able to shoot that down, but I’m not sure that is possible at this point in time.”

He breifly mentioned Iran and Syria last night in the speech. What was that all about?
I think we better watch this closely and be ready to demand impeachment if he so much as thinks about going after them too.

Thea's first statement bothers me. I don't know that it's accurate to say that he hasn't done "a single thing right." That sounds more like hyperbole than anything. He's done a lot wrong, but I don't think it lends credibility to anyone to make a statement like that.

After all, the Lions' Matt Millen is pretty much as bad as it gets, but even he made a good first-round draft choice last year. So for as much as he's done wrong (and as much as I want him out of the organization), he has done a few things right. A very few, but a few nonetheless.

The more troops the U.S. has in Iraq, the more entrenched it becomes in a hopeless situation and the more damage it does to itself and to the Middle-east as a whole. We have no genuine mission in Iraq and never did. The radical Muslims, the number of them increasing all the time, are on a holy mission from God unto death, as they see it. We cannot defeat that unless we kill them all and that is not viable. The whole mess was, and is, about control of the world's oil supply in competition with China, not about a cataclysmic religious war at all. This is primarily why congress has laid down and directly or indirectly supported it. There has to be a better way of living with China as a global superpower than to engage in a brutal, primitive, fruitless war. A corrupt government begets a corrupt government. The Muslims know this. We need to get our troops out of Iraq ASAP. All we are accomplishing there is more death and destruction.

i have not seen one thing that makes me think that the iraqi people want freedom or peace badly enough to be worth a drop of our boys blood.
i think this is the presidents one last chance. if they let him do it i think we had better see some pretty dramatic results in a very short time. i'm talking months. if not than we better be prepared to yell "enough" loud enough so that congress listens.

BUSH is a greedy man and wants ALL the oil in Iran, but at what cost? Several in this thread have said impreach, i'm all for it! The only thing he will accomplish in sending more troops, will be more of our guys and gals dying for his arrogance and stupidity. Say NO!

"Thea's first statement bothers me. I don't know that it's accurate to say that he hasn't done "a single thing right." That sounds more like hyperbole than anything. He's done a lot wrong, but I don't think it lends credibility to anyone to make a statement like that."
-sgtwolverine

OH I KNOW! This random person stopped on the street to answer a question has totally lost credibility for me too! She should really be more careful while commenting to a 20something with a clipboard and a digital camera. To think I was looking for hard-hitting honest analysis when I viewed her comments!

Good job, sgtwolverine, you've pointed out Thea's shortcomings.

Now what was the question again? Oh yeah, "what do I think about Matt Millen?" I think he has made one of the worst NFL franchises the worst. He keeps talking about 'victory' and 'freedom' and making the Lions a beacon of hope for the NFC North. But for some reason the Bears are developing a nuclear bomb now.

But at least he made that good draft pick. We should all support Matt Millen. He's made a couple right choices in yet another last place finish in the NFC North.

KuKu, my prayers are with you and your family. My brother is scheduled to leave next month. It's still kind of hard to think that he is goin to be gone over there. I do understand why he is going. Just like all of us, we have friends and family that are going over there and some come home, some do not. Just know that they are there for a reason. They are there to fight for OUR freedom! There are things that I don't agree with Bush, but, do you think any other president would have done it differently??
JUST MY OPINION FOLKS, don't start throwing darts at me!

Many of you on this post have no idea what you are talking about. You know little to nothing of how the military operates yet you feel comfortable playing armchair general because the security of this nation and the lives of our soldiers aren't your responsibility.

War is never perfect. It is not a primetime television show that is resolved in an hour or several hours over several nights and if you screw up you don't get to hit the reset button.

We should all be thankful to anybody who serves in the office of President regardless of their party. It is a difficult job. The President is guaranteed to have half of the country disagree with him at any given time on any given issue. When you are wrong he can guarantee the half that disagreed will be very vocal.

I leave this little tidbit behind today. What if we had not gone to Afghanistan or Iraq and instead made nice with everyone at the UN and we had been attacked again and again over the last 6+ years. Would those of you critical of the President today have been any less critical of him? I suggest that no matter what he did for many out there they would have been every bit as critical of him because it is not the policy they loath as much as the man. I don't recall any of this opposition when President Clinton sent our troops into the middle of an ongoing civil war for what was supposed to be only a year. We are still there today, more than a decade later.

The war hasn't gone perfectly but our military leadership and soldiers have done their best and will continue to do their best with a lot more riding than you armchair generals. Let's honor them by letting them finish. If the new generals have come in with new perspective and believe they can hold territory better with more troops then we should let them give it a try before we decided to give up on them. It's easy for us hear to say cut and run when we've given nothing to this endeavor. Those who have deserve every chance to succeed rather than have the rug pulled out from under them. If we fail in Iraq it won't be because of the military but rather those in this country who continue to demean their mission and give hope to their enemies that the American citizenry lacks the will to win and the confidence in our military to deliver victory.

optimist--Even Bush sr rallied support for Dessert Storm, that is why it went smoothly. It is easier to say sitting here away from the president's seat or away from the military, but there are particular ways in which to accomplish goals and W chose to push into chaos (unilaterially). This mess is the result of those choices. We have failed in Iraq. Unfortunately, we lost many, as has the Iraqis. I lost a friend in Iraq in 2004.

Perhaps if Shrub hadn't blundered into Iraq on falsehoods, the situation in Afghanistan would be stable by now. Remeber Afghanistan? The country we invaded because the orchestrator of 9-11 was hiding there? Where's Osama? Not in Iraq.

Wow, bea -- I suggested a draft and I didn't even realize it! I must be slipping.

Weterica, I thought my comments were fairly straightforward. She said Bush hasn't done one thing right, and I said that seemed a bit extreme, since even those who are among the worst at their jobs -- like Millen -- generally do something right at some point -- like the Lions' drafting Ernie Sims last year. I don't recall saying that Bush is an amazing president or that Millen deserves support.

"If we fail in Iraq it won't be because of the military but rather those in this country who continue to demean their mission and give hope to their enemies."

Exactly! If American citizens and press quit being such whiners then we can militarily solve this silly old Shiite-Sunni split that been going on since 632, among other things like Arab tribalism and inherent anti-Western sentiments in the region. Unfortunately all you armchair generals are just too stupid to understand. Man, you guys are stupid!

Thank you so much, optimist, for your condescending rebuke of democracy and apparent wish for military rule.

Now all you stupids shut up and let the leadership keep winning this war. They've done a terrible job so far, and every naive, platitude-laden benchmark that was set by the civilian leadership is now not even on the horizon of possibility, but that doesn't change the fact that all you armchair generals are stupid and wimpy, and don't have the courage to send Americans into a civil war that our leadership doesn't even understand.

If only the whole citizenry was as brave as Bush and Cheney! Sure, they were too chicken to sacrifice themselves in a war, but at least they are brave enough to sacrifice others.

Sure, pretty much everything that they sold the American public about this war has been at best wrong, and at worst lies, but all you dummies need to shut up and let them keep going, because all you Silly Billies just don't understand. Man, you guys are stupid. Just let the leaders lead. Screw accountability!

IF we are in Iraq due to our government's desire to control oil and we are irate at the loss of life over this oil fight and we demand that our soldiers not die for this reason and at least 50% of our people agree that this fight is horrrible and absolutely wrong, THEN why have we not seen 50% of the people boycott oil and its uses? Why have we not sen more people demand technology that would not require oil consumption. Why are we not making the non lethal sacrifices in our own country to push to get the soldiers home safely?
I would dare to say it is impossible to prove that a war is ever futile or worthwhile at it inception, but only after time gives us evidence that it did not play out the way it was planned. The loss is actually incurred in continuing to provide resources and energy to arguing whether or not a war is reasonable. Instead we should divert the energy into a reasonable solution. In this case if we do not have a need for fossil fuels, then we do not have a need to fight for them. If we believe that fossils fuels are a non-renewable tragedy. Then by releasing ourselves from the addiciton we would win the battle on more than one front. We would have no need to be in the middle east fighting for oil. We would not be putting resources into the middle east that they would be using to fight against us. We would be supporting our own futures both economically and environmentally by switching gears to a non oil based energy source for homes an cars. It is not an overnight solution, but it will cost a lot less in lives if we get started now.

Please feel free to show me the error of my ways, but realize that I am neither R or D and I am not pushing any religioius cause with this agenda.

Among the many silly statements so far, my favorite is mention of "Dessert Storm." Everybody run! Its raining cheesecake!

sgt, you have made your point already. You completely and fully support Bush and think Millen should be named to his cabinet. Got it. Now, any ideas for a second thread or question, you know, so you and Gootsie can still take part without upsetting sb, the newly self-appointed general of the board?

sb -- tb answered the question, directly and honestly. Some are for, some are against. I'm against. tb is for. Anything I write won't change his mind, and he won't change mine. Type away if you wish, but please stop telling others how they should respond. You see, there isn't any real debate going on around here -- just name-calling and put-downs. If you don't like our pointing this simple fact out to you, I'm sure there are plenty of other threads for you to participate.

Wait, Py, I thought the blue shirt was a major political blunder. I couldn't believe he wore that shirt!

Scene, that's just it -- when I travel around to other active threads, it seems that the majority of them turn into the same sort of argument we're seeing here today. The reason I've enjoyed this particular thread is that for the most part, it tends to stay away from this sort of argument. Even when there are spirited disagreements, the political name-calling isn't the rule like it is on many other active threads.

Bea, I'm glad you understand me. And to be specific, since Millen drafted a very good linebacker, I think he should be the Secretary of Defense.

Just a ploy to drag this thing out another year. Bush has no intention of working in this country's interests-never has. He has as much said that he doesn't care what the people think. He, Cheney and Rove need to be investigated, impeached and sit behind bars for treason.

sb -- "Hey, bea, WTF? I haven't told anyone how to respond" Oh really. Wasn't it you who wrote:

"If you don't like it, I suppose you could stop posting irrelevant statements..."
and
"Sgt - there are plenty of other threads for you to participate in."

You ask, "I haven't called anyone any names, so, really - where do you get off?" Yet a simple glance at your posts this morning finds you referring to "Bush-fluffers" and state "no sane person" ... That is name calling and instantly dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with you as someone lacking sanity. It is true that others are far worse offenders, but please don't act all innocent. So really, where I get off is at the bus stop called "Civil Discourse." I highly recommend it.

Finally, just so you know, I agree with your viewpoint on the war and argued against deployment of any troops to Iraq back when the Dixie Chicks could still get a good table in a Nashville restaurant. I let my liberal flag fly on a regular basis, and the thought of defending tb makes me cringe, but we must commit to rise above. I just hate the hate and the total dismissing of others' opinions that goes for political discussion these days.

Plus, you picked on Gootsie, who obviously and already has defended herself. So count me as the Secretary at the Deptarment of Redundancy Department.

Here's why: the whole deal is much bigger than Iraq. Do you support President Bush's effort in Afghanistan? I do, and I suspect you and others around here do not. It's much bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan too. Do some thoughtful reading on this site for a few days and draw your own conclusions:

BTW, I hate the war too. At least we're treating our troops with respect when they return, unlike how the Vietnam vets were treated. Good for us. Let's get our children and spouses and partners home, for crying out loud.

... Democrats lack the bills, I assume? Well, I am hoping we'll see some results from Pelosi very soon.

It is sad when an accurate assessment of a president's accomplishments can be mistaken for hyperbole.

And yes, thunderbuns, thanks for stepping up to the plate, as we will have to come up with half a million new soldiers to build up our permanent ranks. I suppose we'll have no trouble spotting you on the news from the front lines!

The numbers we have just heard are so high, I wouldn't doubt if the military started giving enlisted women more benefits to stay out of combat, in hopes of bringing more pro-military children in the country. Otherwise we may be forced to pursue an army enlistment program more similar to Israel's than to what we have taken for granted since 1973.

Supporting the troops in Afghanistan has NOTHING to do with the invasion/occupation of Iraq. If shrub had remained focused on Osama and Afghanistan instead of rushing will-nilly into Iraq on false pretenses, perhaps Osama would be in custody now.

Boy it took a lot of scrolling to get down here, but here are my thoughts.
The speech, well, it wasn't as hard to watch as I thought it would be. Thank goodness he didn't make any faces. I can't stomach those. I sort of felt rather sorry for the poor bloke. He is in an impossible situation and getting out of it will not be easy. As he said, mistakes were made and I believe the biggest one was listening to rummy. He was the biggest boob in Washington. He was told by the generals to send more troops, according to Bob Woodward of the Wash Post. but thought he knew better.
The second big mistake, ongoing mistake, is stubbornly refusing to talking to Iran and Syria. True, Ahmadinejad is a real nutter, but why anger him even more. My philosophy has always been, Know thine enemy
It would be interesting to ask Barbara Bush if her little Georgie refused to eat his carrots and peas. But I don't think an answer would be forthcoming.

not once did anyone mention Israel wanting to nuke Iran..guess what kids..if that happens that war in Iraq is gonna look like a picnic..Israel our good buddies our allies want to nuke Iran..nuke Iran an your gonna have every muslim painting bullseyes on all of us....that will really tick them off.....also i spoke to an Army Major who has a couple of tours under his belt..he said 20,000 is nothing....its only 5 brigades..and they are not going all at once...just piece-mealed....they are now dipping into our strategic reserve...get the picture? All you that voted for that guy are responsible...you killed the 3,000 plus....the Pres. of Iraq wants us out of there...but Bush is not leaving because Cheney and his boys want that oil..theres oil in Africa too there is alot of covert stuff going on there.....how many times did Bush mention Al Queida last night...? Remember Gen Shinseki said it was going to take several hundred thousand soldiers to do the job correctly and butted heads with Rumsfeld and Rumy forced Gen Shinseki into retirement..and Bush said last night he didnt send enough troops to do the job...four years later...the quaqmire of vietnam resurfaces....MISSION ACCOMPLISHED...!

Isn't it funny how a person can come in here and get their panties or shorts in a wad and be all downing on people's comments? I know I made my opinion, and Mr./Ms. I Got Up With A Wedgie (sp?) had to say something about my comment. Not to mention along with everyone else's comment...lol It IS an OPINION! We have the right to have one. Opinions are like *ss holes, and everyone has one! :)~ Have a Jolly Good Day Everyone!

ms_c:
"The second big mistake, ongoing mistake, is stubbornly refusing to talking to Iran and Syria. True, Ahmadinejad is a real nutter, but why anger him even more. My philosophy has always been, Know thine enemy"

That is the sum and substance of the core problem: the left in this country and elsewhere are afraid to anger Ahmadinejad and those like him. We have to tip toe around them or we "might make them mad".

In an Islamic state run by people like Ahmadinejad (Iran, Syria, the old Afghanistan, the old Iraq, etc.) they understand only one thing about resolving issues: violence. Ya gotta fight fire with fire. Do you honestly think bin Laden would talk diplomatically? He understands only one thing: violence. Ditto with the Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad. These "people" are dangerous and must be stopped using what they understand: violence.

You are right: "know your enemy". I know them and they understand one thing. And one thing only.

Posted by thunderbuns (anonymous) on January 11, 2007 at 1:47 p.m
"In an Islamic state run by people like Ahmadinejad (Iran, Syria, the old Afghanistan, the old Iraq, etc.) they understand only one thing about resolving issues: violence"

Yeah not like our sophisticated western societies, we Always settle our differences with non-violent negotiations. Ha!

Thunderbuns - so do you propose a raid into Iran? Are you going to enlist and go over there? How much more taxes do you want to pay for more forces? Do you honestly think that the US is the police force of the world?

Meanwhile Robert Gates and Condi Rice are suggesting 500,000 troops in Iraq over time on NPR news this AM. If USA and British take majority control of Iraq oil troops will never be out of there = high dollar gasoline. 21,500 new troops= $100,000,000,000(billion). Also means putting a lot of military families through hell. How about spending money on alternative energy and fuel efficient automobiles instead of getting people killed?

CAIRO, Egypt (Reuters) -- U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops will fail to bring peace to Iraq and could aggravate a conflict in which tens of thousands of people have already died, Arab analysts said on Thursday.

Bush, taking advice mainly from a small group of ideologues, has misunderstood the nature of the conflict and is wrong to think that a military solution is possible, they added.

A few analysts in the Gulf, where the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was less unpopular than in the rest of the Arab world, said more troops might help, but it could also be too late.

Bush's plan, announced early on Thursday in the Middle East, overlooks or rejects policy options which the analysts said were essential -- dialogue with Iran and Syria, and a determined U.S. effort to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"America is no longer in the driving seat. It has lost Iraq and adding a few thousands troops is not going to help because the situation is beyond fixing," said Abdel-Khaleq Abdullah, a political scientist in the United Arab Emirates.

Lets look at the numbers, 3000+ killed in Iraq (US military)- a shame and a great loss of life. What would they have become? And so many are crippled, and thats just US citizens, not counting the 100,000's of Iraqis dead since the war began. How many US citizens were killed by illegal aliens in California alone last year? 3000 more?

And In one year alone, 2006, over 9,000 US citizens were killed on US soil, by illegal aliens.

Over 28,000 since 9/11 have been killed right here by illegal aliens. Some killed by people from from countries, but the big majority of killers -95%(not to mention drunk driving accidental killings additionally, rapes, ID theft, gang violence) are from Mexico.

Why don't we put 20000+ military on our US/Mexico border to stop them from killing us here at home? Aren't we just as important as Iraqis? Aren't civilians just as important as military?

I am a vet, and I would gladly defend the US from this deadly costly illegal alien invasion.

sibkiss: those are some pretty hefty numbers you are throwing out. 9000 in 2006 alone! Care to indicate the source, because I am dubious of a claim of 24.5 people being killed every day in the U.S. by illegals. That would be 180 dead per state, if evenly distributed. Somehow, I doubt Hawaii sees as many deaths as, oh, say Arizona where I live. I don't read of someone being killed every day by illegals. This isn't to say that the problem of illegals isn't a problem. It is! Just not a 9000 U.S. citizens killed a year problem.

rt, good point, and your argument verges on being a criticism of the Bush administration. I'm impressed. Keep going down that path, and next think you know you will be doing the noodle dance at the Wak Fest.

Also from that same data, for the period 1974-2004, 45.9% of murderers were white, and 52.1% were black. So it seems to me that it's highly unlikely that over half of all homicides in 2006 were commited by illegal immigrants, when historically, slightly more than half of the murderors were black, and there just aren't all that many illegal immigrant who are black.

Then again, a quick google will show that the source of sibkiss' xenophobic stupidity is WorldNet Daily, a trashy right-wing rag that makes Drudge and that gay prostitute in the White House look like reputable sources.

Dick Cheney is gud with guns. Let's send his cold little myocardium over to Iraq. With his shooting prowess, we'd be out of Iraq in a week, if fer no other reason than our troops would be running for their lives!

If you read the answers by the pictures, one person talks about Bush and the other mentions the Democrats, I was meaning that many people get caught up in arguing political view points as opposed to supporting our troops.

War is never good, but its about doing what is right, not about waging political battles.

what do you think is the biggest distraction?, I think we all know that there will always be some type of conflict going on somewhere in the world, it seems that the US is either helping out or involved in some way. It is good to help but we must also keep an eye on the needs of our people

I think this whole thing is a political move with Bush hoping that the Congress and House will vote not to send more troops and thus making it possible to blame the failure which is inevitable on the new Democrats.
As always it is a dishonest move to shift blame to someone else.